I wish to point out that religion is a private affair between man and his God. It has no concern with anyone else in the worlds. What is the religion of others is also no concern of mine. Then why have visible signs by which one’s religion may be recognised? You will find, Sir, that in all civilized countries–and civilized countries now-a-days are the countries in Europe and America–there is no visible sign or mark by which a man can be recognised as to what religion he professes. In this country unfortunately, you can find out a man’s religion he professes. In this country unfortunately, you can find out a man’s religion by his visible sign or mark. I need not dilate on this. I will only give the points. In civilized countries people have family names, namely, Disraeli or Birkenhead. From these names you cannot say that Disraeli was a Jew and Birkenhead was Christian. If you hear the name of Lord Reading, you cannot say to what religion he belongs. There was a man in England whose name was Lovegrove. You cannot say to what religion he belongs, though I know he was a Muslim. There are many Christians in England who have become Muhammadans. So in those countries you cannot find out to what religion a man belongs simply by his name. In this country, of course, I have told you, Sir, from a person’s name you can find out his religion. You hear of the name of Pershad. In my province it means a kayasth. If you hear of Ojha or Jha you know that the persons is a Brahmin. In Bengal you know that a person of the name of Mookerjee must be a Brahmin, and so forth. So I do not want these things. I know I am 100 years ahead of the present times. But still, I shall have my say.
